In general, the activities of controlling and designing the configuration data of a telecommunications network are particularly complex and delicate.
Among the reasons for the complexity of the activities, the following can be recalled:                most interventions in the network, such as the insertion of a new node (for instance, the so-called MSC/VLR of a mobile radio network), the introduction of a new service or the maintenance of an existing service generally implies the need to define/redefine the data pertaining to the new/pre-existing nodes;        given the possible centrality of a node within the network architecture (again considering the example of a MSC/VLR of a mobile radio network), the erroneous definition of configuration data of a node and of the criteria for interaction with the nodes destined to co-operate with the node itself can lead to deleterious effects in terms of service availability and possible consequent loss of revenues;        in a network, even a small sized one, a great quantity of configuration data is present which, in addition to being delicate and having strategic value, are subject to being updated very frequently, and        the activities of designing and/or configuring the nodes and the other elements of the network are generally carried out (even when the nodes are based on the same technology) at different times by different subjects.        
Wholly identical functions can therefore be implemented according to equivalent but not exactly identical principles and criteria, giving rise—within the network—to a lack of uniformity which is always negative; this also taking into account the fact that, in any case, different network operators have the tendency to integrate in the same network nodes and/or node components based on different technologies.
It is therefore necessary to provide network operators with such instruments as would enable them to:                ensure that the configuration data of the operating facilities comply with the rules set out by the network operators in the technical design standards,        standardize the configuration of the systems thanks to the identification, on one hand, of the configuration data destined to be identical for all systems and, on the other hand, of the data that cannot be, given their dependence on the location of the system within the network;        optimize the performance of the systems, identifying and eliminating any redundancies in the configuration data, and        unite in a single entity the function of defining the reference configuration rules, leaving to other entities (possibly distributed over the territory if the network is a large one) the action of verifying whether the configuration of the nodes complies with the rules.        
In this regard it should be noted that there is a strong interdependence among the various categories of the configuration data; therefore, it is necessary to have instruments available to check the effects due to the variation of the generic data category: a typical example regards numbering analysis, which is strongly interdependent with billing analysis.
There is also a strong implicit interdependence between the configuration data of different nodes in the network. In other words, the correct treatment of a service within each network node considered individually fails to guarantee in absolute fashion the correct operation of the service within the network in its entirety. Design configuration choices on the individual network nodes, which in themselves may be functionally correct, may in fact be found incompatible when the nodes are interfaced. When verifying the operation of network services or performance, oftentimes there are no absolute correctness criteria to be applied to the individual node, but it is necessary to use correctness criteria relating to the operation of the other nodes in the network.
For instance, it is known among those skilled in the art that an error in a configuration data item in one node can cause malfunctions in the network services that manifest themselves only outside the node itself. The node whereon an error is observed is not always responsible for the malfunction. Therefore, it is necessary to obtain instruments that have the capability of checking the behavior induced on the network by the configuration data, both at the level of the individual node and at the level of the entire telecommunications network in which the node is inserted.
In addition, the semantic distance between the punctual configuration data item and the effect it has on the behavior of the network can be very large. The network operator can detect an error in a configuration data item but not be able to estimate its severity; conversely, he may observe an undesired behavior in the network but not be able to determine which error in a configuration data item in a node may have caused it.
Therefore, it is important to have instruments available that are able to offer a vision both of the global high level behavior of a network service, and to perform a low level analysis of the individual configuration data item in a specific node, aiding the user in semantically connecting the different levels of detail of the analysis.
Traditional techniques for checking the correctness of configuration data are generally based on the preventive manual checking of sets of commands containing modifications to configuration data, on checks through software tools of compliance with the correct syntax of the configuration commands, or on making test calls to test the proper operation of the service downstream of the transmission of the configuration data in the network.
These techniques do not allow one to identify in a wholly satisfactory manner possible errors in the configuration data, either because they are too costly in terms of time and resources or because they are not exhaustive. For example, very often modifications to configuration data are made during the night time hours under conditions of light network loading. Tests conducted in this network condition may not be exhaustive since, under conditions of heavier loading, the network may for instance perform different routings following second or third choice routing paths because of the saturation of the main routing due to intense traffic. It is therefore important to provide network operators with instruments that are able to give answers as to the correctness of configuration data more accurately and exhaustively than those that can be obtained with traditional techniques and in compliance with the time lines required for activating network services.
In view of the deleterious consequences of errors in the configuration data, it is advisable on one hand to be able to perform checks prior to updating data in the network and on the other hand to extend the checking action passing from a mere function of analysis and verification to a function of (re) designing the configuration data of the nodes in accordance with predetermined rules.